Skip to main content

Full text of "Poland Russia and Great Britain 1941-1945"

See other formats

because the Polish Government in those days . . . did not wish to have
within its borders people who, through their racial sympathies, would prove
to be poor Polish citizens. The Polish Government to-day would be very
ready for an exchange of those Ruthenians or Ukrainians, who may wish
to cross the border into Russia, by a transfer of population by which they
would receive back inside Poland the Polish people who may be left alive
of those who are still being detained in Soviet Russia,
The third desire of Russia in regard to Poland is natural again—the
loyal co-operation of the Polish Government and people in peace as well as
in war. The Poles have proved that co-operation in war at the price of a
greater martyrdom than any other nation in. Europe. They still go on.
The Battle of Britain was mentioned just now. It is probable that, but for
the Poles in the Battle of Britain, the result of the battle might have gone
differently. The proportion of German planes shot down by them was
higher, in fact, than those shot down by our own pilots. I ask the House
whether it does not agree that loyal co-operation between the Polish Govern-
ment and people on the one hand, and the Russian Government and people
on the other hand is not more likely to be achieved by fair treatment of Poles
to-day, by a recognition by Russia of the united national, democratic and
independent Polish Government in London as the only possible Polish
Government, and by a Government of Poland after the war elected without
pressure from any outside nation but solely according to the entirely freely
expressed wishes of the Polish people themselves. It would be criminal
foUy to suggest that, without forcing upon our Polish Ally the necessity to
amputate more and more of his own body, any renewal of the relations or
alliance between these two Slav nations is impossible. Let us, therefore,
take whatever aid we can from any Allies against the Germans, but not
such aid as can only be given by the sacrificing of our loyal Allies, because
that is a sacrifice of our own honour, and then, when the day of reckoning
comes to us, as sooner or later it surely must, we shall not then ourselves
have or deserve a single friend in the world. . . .
Mr. McGovern (/.L.P.) : ... If we cast our minds back to 1939, and
remember the high-sounding and lofty phrases in which we announced in
this House our reasons for going to war, we see they have all been shed
to-day, and that the moral and idealistic aspect has been scrapped, as very
often happens as the war goes on. The Prime Minister has talked in the
most contemptuous and evasive manner about pledges given to the various
nations in 1939. Indeed, it was advanced at that time, as one of the great
reasons for our going to war . . .
The position has been reversed within the last six, nine or twelve months.
Where formerly Hitler was advancing throughout various countries, in-
corporating all the States into the German Reich, and declaring them to be
under the guardianship of the Nazi Party, now in a large measure, we see
the armies of Hitler retreating and disgorging the booty^ that they had
claimed when they were over-running Europe. As Hitler is receding, the
partner with whom Hitler entered into his aggressive crimes in 19393 is
taking the place of Adolf, and as Germany is disgorging territory, it is being
swallowed up by Russia. The Prime Minister has, in my estimation, now
become Stalin's " Charlie McCarthy.*5
When does aggression cease to be aggression? Is it aggression only
when perpetrated by Hitler and the Nazi Party, or does it cease to be
aggression when it is perpetrated by Stalin and the Bolshevik Party ? That
is a question to which this nation will have to provide an ^answer before
very long . . . From the way that various countries are being considered
to-day, one would think that they had provoked the war. Finland and